Matter of Crooms v. Corriero – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Matter of Crooms v. Corriero (206 AD2d 275, 614 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1st Dept 1994]), the petitioner was granted a writ of prohibition against the Supreme Court Justice who vacated, on its own motion, the petitioner's guilty plea in the criminal action, which the court had previously accepted.

The petitioner had pleaded guilty to the crime of Robbery in the Second Degree under count six of the indictment against him, and the Assistant District Attorney had acknowledged satisfaction with the allocution.

The court had accepted the plea in return for a promised sentence of 3 to 10 years, and adjourned the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, a different Assistant District Attorney objected to the negotiated plea on the ground that the terms of the plea offer also required the petitioner to plead guilty to an additional count of sexual abuse.

The court vacated the plea on its own motion.

The Appellate Division granted a writ of prohibition, stating, "In the absence of fraud, once a court accepts a guilty plea, it has no inherent power to set aside the plea without the defendant's consent" (Matter of Crooms, 206 AD2d at 277.)

Main Topics

The above are quotes from Case Law and Statutes. The information is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be up-to-date complete or correct. Some of the quotations were edited for clarity.
Please read this Disclaimer carefully before you start to use this Website.
By using the Website and its content you are agreeing to the Website Disclaimer and our Terms & Conditions.

We use Cookies - By using this site or closing this you agree to our Cookies policy.